Santiago Amaro v. The Continental Can Company
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Other courts rejected that rule or its separate rule against requiring exhaustion of remedies for statutory ERISA claims; their decisions did not overrule Ninth Circuit precedent.
53 later cases cite Santiago Amaro v. The Continental Can Company; 53 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Santiago Amaro v. The Continental Can Company?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Declined to follow
-
The Eleventh Circuit required employees asserting statutory ERISA claims to exhaust pension plan remedies, contrary to Amaro's rule for a Section 510 claim.
Mason v. Continental Group, Inc. · Eleventh Circuit · filed
The Ninth Circuit has reached a contrary conclusion in Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747 (9th Cir.1984). In Amaro, the Ninth Circuit rejected the exhaustion requirement for ERISA claims where the claim arises from an alleged statutory violation rather than a breach of contract. ... We agree with the Seventh Circuit and the Amato v. Bernard decision of the Ninth Circuit. ... We therefore hold that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs must exhaust their remedies under the pension plan agreement before they may bring their ERISA claims in federal court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Second Circuit rejected Amaro's objection to arbitration of statutory ERISA claims.
Bird v. Shearson Lehman/American Express, Inc. · Second Circuit · filed
Accordingly, we disagree with those courts that have expressed the fear that substantive rights guaranteed by ERISA may be foreclosed by an arbitration agreement. E.g., Barrowclough, supra, 752 F.2d at 941; Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747, 752 (9 Cir.1984).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit reaffirmed a statutory ERISA exhaustion requirement and identified Amaro as contrary authority.
Powell v. A.T. & T. Communications, Inc. · Seventh Circuit · filed
This court held in Kross that the strong federal policy encouraging private resolution of ERISA-related disputes mandates the application of the exhaustion doctrine to statutory claims for breach of a fiduciary duty under ERISA. ... contra Zipf v. AT & T, 799 F.2d 889, 893 (3rd Cir.1986); Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747, 752 (9th Cir.1984). ... We take this opportunity to reaffirm this court’s notion that a district court may properly require exhaustion of administrative proceedings prior to the filing of a claim involving an alleged violation of an ERISA statutory provision.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District of Kansas rejected an objection based on Amaro's view of arbitrators and permitted arbitration of an ERISA dispute.
Peruvian Connection, Ltd. v. Christian · D. Kan. · filed
In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit held that an arbitrator is generally not considered competent to decide ERISA claims: “Arbitrators, many of whom are not lawyers, lack the competence of courts to interpret and apply statutes as Congress intended.” Id., 910 F.2d at 596 (quoting Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir.1984)). We are not persuaded by PC’s reliance on Johnson. ... In the time since Amaro was decided, the Supreme Court has stated ‘“we are well past the time when judicial suspicion of the desirability of arbitration and of the competence of arbitral tribunals’ should inhibit enforcement of the [Federal Arbitration] Act ‘in controversies based on statutes.’ ” ... Accordingly, Christian’s motion to stay proceedings until completion of pending arbitration should be granted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The Ninth Circuit questioned whether Amaro's rule against arbitrating ERISA claims remained viable, but left the issue open.
Munro v. University of Southern California · Ninth Circuit · filed
USC contends that Amaro is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening Supreme Court case law and, therefore, we should overrule it. Although the Supreme Court has never expressly held that ERISA claims are arbitrable, there is considerable force to USC’s position. See, e.g., Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the issue in dicta). However, given our decision that the claims asserted in this case fall outside the arbitration clauses in the employee agreements, it is unnecessary to decide that question here. Therefore, we leave the issue of Amaro’s viability for another day.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Overruled in Part
-
The Ninth Circuit held that intervening Supreme Court decisions displaced Amaro's rule that ERISA claims could not be arbitrated.
Dorman v. The Charles Schwab Corporation · Ninth Circuit · filed
In so doing, we must revisit our holding in Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1984), in which we held that ERISA claims were not arbitrable. In light of intervening Supreme Court case law, including American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 (2013), we conclude that our holding in Amaro is no longer good law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Santiago Amaro v. The Continental Can Company and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace